| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow that's impressive 251-300 only consists of 5 posts now.
Anyways on topic, I really don't want anymore humanoid shaped monsters with really low hitdice and only one or two minor special abilities. Specially things like the forlorn, monkey goblin, and the many merfolk variants seem like filler to me. Specifically the exact same sort of filler than Forgotten Realms had with its hundreds of elf and dwarf subraces.
I'd also like to avoid intelligent monsters that are entirely isolated in terms of encounters. Monsters that are sapient should be able to have full adventures based around them and that's made difficult if they don't lend themselves to working with other monsters, as variety is needed to keep the adventure interesting. Adding a bunch of monsters with a similar team likely to work together is always a plus, so long as they are distinct enough to be worth 2 pages.
The one thing I do not want to see is a list of really cool monsters and animals and then not being able to summon any of them. As far as I can tell very few monsters have been added to the summon monster/nature's ally list. I would love to see a list in the back of monsters that can be summoned and at what level. I would almost be willing to kill for that.
|
The one thing I do not want to see is a list of really cool monsters and animals and then not being able to summon any of them. As far as I can tell very few monsters have been added to the summon monster/nature's ally list. I would love to see a list in the back of monsters that can be summoned and at what level. I would almost be willing to kill for that.
Agreed. I'd love for there to be at least two options for each alignment (CEGL), and a few neutral ones (elementals, etc.) for each level of summon monster, and for all the templated animals to be removed. I don't find the idea that the heavens or hells are populated by cetes of heavenly badgers or pods of infernal porpoises all that compelling.
And when it gets up there in summon monster levels, and you've got resolute/examplar tyrannosaurs apparently wandering around the city of Axis, and anarchic/entropic giant squid splorping around the Maelstrom, it gets pretty surreal.
With the change from 3.5 to PF, and the celestial / fiendish templates no longer granting an alignment, it's even more weird, as the 'good' and 'evil' planes are now heavily populated with non-good and non-evil creatures.
I think we are more likely to see custom summon lists in other sources than a Bestiary. I don't think James Jacob is a fan of using bestiaries to increase the number of summonable monsters, due to worry of option bloat or making Summon Monster too powerful a spell.
This is true, James Jacobs has explicitly written that he does not want more added to the summon lists but, and there is a big but, for homebrew games players and gm's can work with their setting and tinker with the summon monster lists for their characters personal taste, and gm's personal flare.
Modrons and Dragonspawn, I hope they are kept in their horrid Copyright prison for all eternity.
Worst thing for me is that Bestiary 5 is just as wasted as D&D monster manual I once bought with over 10 of those horrid, silly and stupid looking Modron in it.
I hate those things and I hope they burn in copyright forever. Tum tum tum!!!!!!!
I hope no more true Dragons for three particular reasons:
1) They are supposed to be the apex of mortal creatures and, as such, very rare. At present we have so many Dragons that even if only one per type existed contemporarily, they'd be an army.
2) With all the already existing types, the limit of ridiculousness draws near. I don't want to see Soap Dragons or Banana Dragons next.
3) I run my personal errata of the Bestiaries, and true Dragons are always the largest pain in the ass of the whole books.
Got cool ideas for new Dragons? Unless you think they really (really) [really] {really} would be better statted as true Dragons, make them as standalone creatures, like the Jabberwock and others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't want to see in Bestiary 5:
Outsiders of any type.
Dragons of any type.
Giants of any type.
Furries (anthropomorphic animals) of any type.
Robots/androids/clockworks/scifi critters of any type.
Anything based upon a SYFY Channel movie or show.
Well, if Paizo was to listen to everybody in this thread, Bestiary 5 would be 320 blank pages :)
Well many people want less true dragons and fill-in-any-landscape Giants for example, they can listen to that.
Only some people want less Lovecraft critters so they probably can ignore that.
Its about the whole of this thread.
Most important thing so far, people think there are really too much landscape giants.
There is not enough true dragons or landscape/element giants but there are more then enough demons, devils, and daemons.
Well, if Paizo was to listen to everybody in this thread, Bestiary 5 would be 320 blank pages :)
While that may be true, I doubt it because they could invent 320 pages of new monsters, I would hope that Paizo would at least look through this list and the other to see if there is any sort of consensus. If 80% of the posts here say no more landscape giants, and 30% of the posts in the other thread say more landscape giants, then they should realize that a book with 40 pages of landscape giants isn't going to be all that popular.
What I don't want to see in Bestiary 5:
Anything based upon a SYFY Channel movie or show.
Awe no Pirahnaconda??
Grumble, Grumble!!!
:P
Well, if Paizo was to listen to everybody in this thread, Bestiary 5 would be 320 blank pages :)While that may be true, I doubt it because they could invent 320 pages of new monsters, I would hope that Paizo would at least look through this list and the other to see if there is any sort of consensus. If 80% of the posts here say no more landscape giants, and 30% of the posts in the other thread say more landscape giants, then they should realize that a book with 40 pages of landscape giants isn't going to be all that popular.
There are only like 20 at most regular commentors on the bestiary threads. I don't think that sort of sample size can be used to infer all that much about product directions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if Paizo was to listen to everybody in this thread, Bestiary 5 would be 320 blank pages :)While that may be true, I doubt it because they could invent 320 pages of new monsters, I would hope that Paizo would at least look through this list and the other to see if there is any sort of consensus. If 80% of the posts here say no more landscape giants, and 30% of the posts in the other thread say more landscape giants, then they should realize that a book with 40 pages of landscape giants isn't going to be all that popular.
Vocal minorities on internet forums are seldom any indication of what the target group at a large is after.
For example, people are always turbo vocal about art books, and if you put out an art book, you suddenly find out that it doesn't sell at all.
Well, if Paizo was to listen to everybody in this thread, Bestiary 5 would be 320 blank pages :)
While that may be true, I doubt it because they could invent 320 pages of new monsters, I would hope that Paizo would at least look through this list and the other to see if there is any sort of consensus. If 80% of the posts here say no more landscape giants, and 30% of the posts in the other thread say more landscape giants, then they should realize that a book with 40 pages of landscape giants isn't going to be all that popular.
I don't care if they include things I won't use. Every bestiary has. As long as I'm getting some that I want / need / will use I'm OK with them catering to other people. They can't expect a large hardback book aimed at a broad group to succeed / sell if they cater to a small, if vocal, group. It will have things you don't like. It will have things you do like. Nature of the beast, or bestiary in this case...
Agreed. I'd love for there to be at least two options for each alignment (CEGL), and a few neutral ones (elementals, etc.) for each level of summon monster, and for all the templated animals to be removed. I don't find the idea that the heavens or hells are populated by cetes of heavenly badgers or pods of infernal porpoises all that compelling.
And when it gets up there in summon monster levels, and you've got resolute/examplar tyrannosaurs apparently wandering around the city of Axis, and anarchic/entropic giant squid splorping around the Maelstrom, it gets pretty surreal.
Actually, I interpret summoning spells as making a new (temporary) creature, with the template application being a side effect of your own alignment rubbing off onto the creature. The spell doesn't fetch you a Celestial Badger scampering around the mountain of heaven, it makes a new badger, which is infused with your own Goodness to become a celestial badger.
This is why I also allow you to summon creatures outside of your alignment (even though by the rules you can't) with some changes. Good-aligned casters can summon Risen Hezrous, while Evil-aligned casters can summon Fallen Ghaeles.
Modrons and Dragonspawn, I hope they are kept in their horrid Copyright prison for all eternity.
Worst thing for me is that Bestiary 5 is just as wasted as D&D monster manual I once bought with over 10 of those horrid, silly and stupid looking Modron in it.
I hate those things and I hope they burn in copyright forever. Tum tum tum!!!!!!!
Ever played Torment? Nordom is adorable.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, people are always turbo vocal about art books, and if you put out an art book, you suddenly find out that it doesn't sell at all.
It helps if the art in the book isn't pixelated.
I'm sure the Paizo Defense Force will jump in to say that it's not all that bad, and it's only a couple of dozen pictures in the book. And if it were an RPG book, I'd be right there with them. But the art was the entire point of the book...and Paizo dropped the ball. Even worse, their response to the criticism was basically "Deal with it."
[/off topic rant]
|
|
Actually, I interpret summoning spells as making a new (temporary) creature, with the template application being a side effect of your own alignment rubbing off onto the creature. The spell doesn't fetch you a Celestial Badger scampering around the mountain of heaven, it makes a new badger, which is infused with your own Goodness to become a celestial badger.Agreed. I'd love for there to be at least two options for each alignment (CEGL), and a few neutral ones (elementals, etc.) for each level of summon monster, and for all the templated animals to be removed. I don't find the idea that the heavens or hells are populated by cetes of heavenly badgers or pods of infernal porpoises all that compelling.
And when it gets up there in summon monster levels, and you've got resolute/examplar tyrannosaurs apparently wandering around the city of Axis, and anarchic/entropic giant squid splorping around the Maelstrom, it gets pretty surreal.
Unfortunately, celestial creatures aren't good and fiendish creatures aren't evil, in Pathfinder (although they were in 3.5), so that logic, while neat (and I would prefer summoned creatures to be one-shot creatures that appear and disappear with the casting of the spell, and don't necessarily exist otherwise), doesn't necessarily work with the PF rules.
This is why I also allow you to summon creatures outside of your alignment (even though by the rules you can't) with some changes. Good-aligned casters can summon Risen Hezrous, while Evil-aligned casters can summon Fallen Ghaeles.
That's a cool idea.
|
|
For example, people are always turbo vocal about art books, and if you put out an art book, you suddenly find out that it doesn't sell at all.It helps if the art in the book isn't pixelated.
I'm sure the Paizo Defense Force will jump in to say that it's not all that bad, and it's only a couple of dozen pictures in the book. And if it were an RPG book, I'd be right there with them. But the art was the entire point of the book...and Paizo dropped the ball. Even worse, their response to the criticism was basically "Deal with it."
[/off topic rant]
I was actually referring to the much-requested, much-expected, never-really-going-off-the-shelf-now-at-4-USD Artwork of Dragon Magazine book.
But I'm glad you never fail to disappoint with your usual tangents :)
I can't get used to the demigods in a bestiary... It's not like I don't want them to be in a bestiary now, but just because we don't have another book for this guys... So, it would be a good idea to create a specific book line for them, as well for the Kaijus and the unique creatures - Old Ones, Lords of all the races and so on. I would be so happy with a "Kaiju Unleashed"!
But if the unique demigod like creatures were to be stated in a bestiary, please, let the Four, the Elemental Lords and the Qlippoth Lords make their way in.
We should get a break with the demons, devils and daemons. Qlippoth, Psychopomps and Kytons are a better choice this time, as we already have a lot of the big evils... I can't find new demons or devil a bad thing, but we need more of the other relevant outsiders to. They are closely related to the core deities and the central plot after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no more undead, demons, or mother-in-laws.
Wait, what?
Also no more core races with professions.
Would love to see more goblinoids, aliens and alien animals, vanilla core races as monsters, and other social humanoids or monstrous humanoids. The Monster Codex was wonderful too - wouldn't mind MC2, 3, or 5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes monter codex is great and all. But bestiary 5 in 2015 please not mc 2.
Yes monter codex is great and all. But bestiary 5 in 2015 please not mc 2.
NPC Codex 2 is probably more likely for 2015 than Bestiary 5 or Monster Codex 2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes monter codex is great and all. But bestiary 5 in 2015 please not mc 2.NPC Codex 2 is probably more likely for 2015 than Bestiary 5 or Monster Codex 2.
Meh, not so excited if that's the case. My world is not so overrun by humans for that to be all that useful.
|
|
I don't know if this is true, but it SEEMS like they got the Formians from the Bestiary 4 by taking the Buggers from Ender's Game (or Formics, if you've read the innumerable sequels, which are great) and giving them magic instead of awesome technology.
Yeah, the stuff from alien worlds is still cool to me, though. Maybe some Androffan robots next time.
(or Formics, if you've read the innumerable sequels, which are great)
Did you like the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3 too?
There is not enough true dragons or landscape/element giants
I feel like there are far beyond too many of those.
Yes, I'm biased just because I usually scan the Bestiaries for errors and Dragons are Hell in that regard.But mainly I don't want to end up having ridiculous and overly unnecessary creatures like Towel Dragons, Backyard Giants or Poodle Agathions just because "everything must be covered". It mustn't, if it doesn't really have a point.
Same goes for those endless lists in the Bestiary Wishlist threads, full of names of creatures from odd folklore that really spark no interest and for the game in general just add other unremarkable creatures to the consistency-breaking cauldron.
They would have to give us new agathions to get the poodle version, if anything we would have poodle demons long before we got any new agathions.
They will never create towel dragons or backyard giants though towel giants and backyard dragons sound interesting:)
If there is one thing I am sick of, it is demons, we already have 50+ of there guys but only 4 proteans, 10 or less of each type of celestials, several inevitables, a handful of azura, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Better a bestiary with some monsters I don't like than no bestiary at all.
Well the catch is that it might not be better if it turns out a huge majority of the monsters are ones you don't like (especially if the rest are redundant or mediocre) as it could dissuade you from buying it, or lead to buyer's remorse.
In truth, I myself don't really even make use of the vast majority of the expanded bestiaries as I have no real use for most of the monsters given what already exists (the core rulebook with ogres, ogre magi, trolls, hill giants, and the elemental giants already had enough giants with enough variety that you could create and build tons of varied giants just by changing their equipment around, changing their feat paths, or giving them different class levels, especially since most of the classes are disassociated for them) and that's before you consider what you can do with templates and HD advancements.
I'd personally like to see a book that's actually legitimately useful and makes being a GM easier. One of the biggest things I seriously miss about the 3.5 MM (and a reason I still often use the 3.5 MM with some conversions) was the animal and vermin chapters in the back. When a bestiary is printed, we get animals sat with the regular monsters, one page of information, full art print, etc. The problem is, it does NOTHING to help with actually making use of the book.
In 3.5, you had a special animals chapter in the back. It lists the statblocks and a brief description of the animal and what similar animals the statblock can be used for. The vermin chapter has full statblocks for vermin ranging from tiny to colossal, making using different kinds of giant spiders and such super easy.
In the PF bestiary, we got a medium giant spider, and a little tiny table that tells you how many HD other versions have, but little else, which requires you to reverse-build the monster down for smaller versions and it doesn't give GMs any information on how their poisons and such scale (which can be daunting for new GMs who need the bestiary the most).
I wouldn't mind seeing some new generic (note I did not say "simple") templates for helping GMs repurpose existing creatures for certain environments or themes. For example, planar templates that make small changes to creatures to make them more environmentally sound on certain planes are pretty nice (some of this has been done with templates like celestial, fiendish, or shadowed).
There's even a part of me that thinks it'd be pretty sweet to have a book that instead of a bestiary presented lots of classed variants of existing creatures, similar to one of the latter MMs in the 3.5 line, except that be the entire book (instead of actually being a bestiary), but given Paizo's history with making NPCs for using in campaigns (the god-awful Gamemastering NPCs spring to mind) I'd probably be nervous about that as well (though the NPC codex seemed pretty good so I'm not entirely without hope).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm probably much more concerned with creature execution overall than creature type. But here goes some things I'm a little bit weary of
a) creatures that are merely slight variants/rehashes of previously existing monsters, ones that don't bring much new to the table.
b) Creatures that are mostly grab bags of assorted but unassociated resistances, immunities, and spell-like abilities.
c) otherworldly entities whose main function is to kill you or swallow your soul.
#1 tends to be giants, golems, and such. (Big brutes who can hit pretty hard but can be pushovers otherwise.) #2 and especially #3 tend to be outsiders, especially those of the big three (Demon, Devil, Daemon).
Most notably about outsiders, I'm a bit fatigued by the number of them that variant in how/why they want to kill/destroy you because many times the specifics don't matter in many games/campaigns. If there is to be more fiendish outsiders (and I'm guessing we'll see more of them if a Bestiary V does arrive), I would like to see the new ones take up a different "conceptual niche."
Yes monter codex is great and all. But bestiary 5 in 2015 please not mc 2.NPC Codex 2 is probably more likely for 2015 than Bestiary 5 or Monster Codex 2.
The horror.
Same goes for those endless lists in the Bestiary Wishlist threads, full of names of creatures from odd folklore that really spark no interest and for the game in general just add other unremarkable creatures to the consistency-breaking cauldron.
I'm so glad that you are a rare case of persons in this.
And that is never going to happen anyway, Paizo's staff love them mythology.
I hope the 5th book is so crowded with them, that you don't even want to buy it. >:-D
I would indeed shudder to think that Paizo would ever pass up a chance to make the Monster Codex 2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Juda de Kerioth - no more dragons, dinosaurs, or giants, and put in the critters from the other products that haven't been put in a bestiary yet.
I would also like to see a little bit more about the general behavior, motivations, and habits of the various creatures, even if that means putting fewer creatures in each book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why people are against a bestiary 5 at all? If you don't want it, just don't buy it. Simple as that.
NO Dinosaurs? That is blasphemy.
I too am curious - why the dinosaur hate?
I'm sure the hate towards another bestiary is because:
1) D&D proved that the more monster manuals they made the more pathetic they became (see monster manuals 4 and 5 from the 3.5 edition), Paizo on the other hand, proved that each bestiary becomes better and better.
2) Really see more need in humans and NPC Codex.
3) Just want to spoil the fun for others that are addicted to them.
But the dinosaur hate, is just, strange...
No Dragons, No giants, no dinosaurs, then why bother with a bestiary at all.
I would really not care for Anthrax in my Bestiary 5. I'll wait for the PRD update, thanks. I would rather not have suspicious, unidentifiable substances in the Bestiary 5.
But above all else, I don't want a page or pages that seem(s) real, like it's right there when you look at it, and it's in a book full of other similar pages so it would make more sense for it to be there than not, but upon further investigation and scientific testing can be proven to not actually exist.
Yeah. That's pretty much it.
I'd rather see mythological giants and dragons and not the usual environment-giants and 5 forced dragons that usually made it.
Look at the Jabberwock, Peluda, Ladon/Guardian Dragon and some others, those are my favorite Dragons, the 5 dragons never really get to me (spare for the amazing 5 dragons in Bestiary 2 and the forest dragon from bestiary 3 and the solar/lunar dragons from bestiary 4) that well. And there are more than enough myth-dragons to pick from, starting with the meteor/fire/stone dragon named Gaasyendietha, it is so hot it has to live in lakes.
I'm really tired of the landscape-giants, rather see the bizarre myth-giants getting a page like Antaeus and Yehwe zogbanu.
For dinosaurs I really hope to see the Therizinosaurus, Carnotaurus, Gorgonopsid and Tanystropheus gettting some love, the latest additions in bestiary 4 were in my opinions copies of earlier dinosaurs, only weaker variants. Therizinosaurus should get a picture of course, that is such a bizarre beast.
I don't see an issue with dinosaurs/prehistoric life in general, as there are still lots of distinct creatures to stat up.
I do get the point with dragons/giants. We have a giant for almost every environmental type. I suspect we are getting near the saturation point for these guys. At this point I would rather see the Gigas, or more titans, or giant-like creatures (things like ogres or cyclops) than another BLANK Giant.
The same issue also concerns dragons. I still want to see new types of creatures with the dragon subtype, but not necessarily a new set of capital D dragons. Outside Planar dragons or perhaps Horned Serpent dragons, I am not sure there is much available design space for them.
Still I tend to think Bestiary 3 and 4 were awesome, and I think spicing up the "Bestiary" slot with books like Monster Codex or NPC codex will help ensure that the bestiaries don't grow "old" or "lame".
While everyone keeps saying no more giants, there is still one important concept of giant missing IMO:
A collossal giant. A truly enormous brute like a Hill giant, but many times bigger.
This would mirror the giants of most giants in Fairy Tales better than the classic D&D landscape giants.
5 outer giants (moon giants, asteroid giants, gas giant giants, solar giants, Cthuluesque void giants with finger and toe tentacles). All equipped with cybernetic implants and lasers and plasma guns.
5 undead creatures that look like skeletons but with unique things attached - like rope skeletons with ropes, cutlery skeletons with cutlery attached, hook skeletons with a giant hook and chain attached, and cuddly toy skeletons for the kids.
Thanks for posting this in things I don't want in bestiary 5 topic. So I don't have to get my fingers dirty for it. :)